How does it improve the pornography experience? The description and examples on that website don't make it obvious. The Register article linked seems to help but I really didn't get that from the landing page or example video.
edit: now I understand, it is a continuous slideshow of erotica, and you can tap any part of the image to be taken down a path of similar images. that's kind of cool.
I thought it would have had something to do with decensoring, but nevermind.
Does BlueStacks work on an Apple Silicon machine? I don't have an android device.
Whenever I see news like this- I feel like there are a lot of work that can be done in Porn with AI. There are several low-hanging fruits that can be very easily solved. I don't know why no one is working on them.
I guess it would be difficult for people to say that they do AI at PornHub, and it will be hard for people to find work afterwards. Not to mention the ethical implications even when the humans involved fully agree to everything.
This comment reminds me of a disturbing one I read a few months back on an anonymous underwater basket weaving forum.
The poster was discussing those expensive “real doll” (?) sex robots that creep me out, anyways he went on to mention that he discovered the app “face app” could take these things from “uncanny valley” to essentially photorealistic. Makes sense given what the app is supposed to do, but the real mind fuck was he said it also works on under aged dolls… which again I was surprised to learn are apparently legal most places.
So AI/ML can take an inanimate object and then create highly illegal fool-most-humans level fake image from said inanimate object. Seems pretty scary to me, and we might not be far from an ML model that can essentially produce endless amounts of illegal content.
What are the implications of that? How do you even begin to police/filter that? Then I guess there’s the question of if we even should, since none of it’s real anyways.
> Then I guess there’s the question of if we even should, since none of it’s real anyways.
The idea of "policing" something that isn't even real should be seen as just patently ridiculous to any thinking person.
What comes after that? People love to shit all over the "slippery slope" and call it a "fallacy" even though there's a clear historical record of how the smallest of openings for those in power eventually become handholds, then footholds, until finally, you're living under a tyrannical system.
I would argue that it's a reasonable limit on whichever freedom may be cited not to allow the creation and distribution of child pornography, even when it is fictitious.
It's not implausible that deepfake child porn ultimately causes harm to children. Allowing people to repeatedly indulge in a weak fetish may reinforce it into a strong one, or blunt a disgust response which would prevent them from acting it out.
Not sure if I want to get into this discussion... but is underage porn still illegal when it's not technically depicting a real person? And is it moral? I could see it going either way (no child got hurt in the process / but it may push someone with pedophile tendencies towards acting on them / but it could also provide a safe outlet for someone with those tendencies).
Well sure they can, although it depends what government you're talking about. Porn laws in Japan are weird, and the government does require that distributed pornography (including drawings) be censored.
It's complicated, in that this depends on jurisdiction. In some places, the age of the character matters, not just the actor's age. Regardless of legality, I think this is very prominent in self censorship. A lot of filmmakers wouldn't depict a nude 15 year old sexually, regardless of the actor's actual age.
It probably depends on whether they can prove the individual was soliciting for the real stuff. Same legal reason for why you're still committing a crime when you fall for a sting operation with an actual adult.
In the US in particular, it doesn't matter if the underaged subject exists or not, but I think you'll find the law much more loosely enforced in cases where the subject of the pictures doesn't exist.
> it doesn't matter if the underaged subject exists or not
Are you sure this is true? As weird as it is it seems pretty ridiculous to suggest that someone drawing a sketch could be guilty of the same thing as someone abusing a real child.
They're both illegal under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996:
> The Child Pornography Prevention Act added two categories of speech to the definition of child pornography. The first prohibited "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." In Ashcroft case, the Court observed that this provision "captures a range of depictions, sometimes called 'virtual child pornography,' which include computer-generated images, as well as images produced by more traditional means."
> The second prohibited "any sexually explicit image that was advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression it depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
"Computer-generated" images was a remarkably prescient thing to include in 1996, since it criminalizes deepfakes and GAN images.
I think the standard argument is that even though actual minors aren't harmed by the creation of such images, the images trigger pedophiles to become more depraved or something. There's probably an element of the old obscenity laws to it - real or not, child porn is obscene, and obscenity isn't covered by the first amendment without some artistic merit.
I'm not sure of case law around enforcement of this.
> but is underage porn still illegal when it's not technically depicting a real person?
If we look at existing laws, it should be. Depicting an underage person even when the actor is an adult is illegal, I think, in every country. So adult actress portraying a minor is illegal. So why not pixels depicting young girls should be illegal?
The pixels are just the conduit, just as the the adult actress depicting a minor in a sexual act.
So it should be.
But whether it is moral- I don't know. I don't know enough psychology, public policy, etc. to express an informed opinion.
But my personal choice? Yes. It should be illegal. Hypothetically, if it ever comes to a vote, I would vote against child porn even when there is no real human involved.
That's why child porn in animations is banned as well.
> If we look at existing laws, it should be. Depicting an underage person even when the actor is an adult is illegal, I think, in every country. So adult actress portraying a minor is illegal. So why not pixels depicting young girls should be illegal?
Due to that pesky First Amendment, this is not illegal in the USA. The USA bans child pornography under the rubric that producing or even viewing it implicates the perpetrator in the abuse of a child. If no actual child abuse is taking place, they can't ban it.
Cartoon images and the like may be banned if they depict an actual minor.
> we might not be far from an ML model that can essentially produce endless amounts of illegal content
Like this [0] one?
And give me enough money, I can get you one that's a lot better. But I don't want to work for a porn company because of not the perceived immorality of porn, but for the horrible things that come with Porn. And I am well past my teenage years to do this with my own time and money.
From a practical standpoint I think it is going to be an unmitigated nightmare: people creating AI revenge porn, fake porn of famous people, etc.
From a legal standpoint, I don't think AI changes that much. People still own their image and while I would support stronger penalties for creating fake media of people, the law protects third parties using your image without your permission. Revenge porn already carries specific penalties in many jurisdictions[1].
> I guess there’s the question of if we even should, since none of it’s real anyways.
I absolutely think you should have say over the release and distribution of porn that uses your image. Not because it's wrong to make porn, but because you are impacted by its existence.
[1] I am generally skeptical of the ability of the prison system to deal with these kinds of things, but if we are going to have one I am glad it's included in the list of crimes.
> From a practical standpoint I think it is going to be an unmitigated nightmare: people creating AI revenge porn, fake porn of famous people, etc.
I honestly don’t see these becoming larger problems — once it’s ubiquitous, then it’ll quickly become meaningless; by default, everyone will assume it’s generated, the equivalent of cutting out and pasting their face onto a nude image today, and it’ll have relatively little impact.
It’d probably still be rude and stupid, but I’m fairly positive it’ll be much less damaging than it is today.
Effectively: if everyone stars in a porno, no one does.
I am sorry I missed this because I disagree, I think it's worth considering the legal status of lying. Generally, lying is protected speech (and everyone does lie sometimes), but that's not the case when you lie in certain circumstances. We've always recognized that some lies are worse than others and I expect that some fake porns will be worse than others too. I expect that making fake pornography will work the same way, probably following the already-established legal frameworks I suggested.
Feminists are against it because they are afraid it could replace real women. I have to admit that considering the general shittyness of man it is not beyond the realm of possibility that one day we might prefer the companionship of robots. I read Asimov when I was a teen.
Despite the headline, inside the actual article they admit that it wasn't really for uncensoring that he got arrested, but for copyright violation (as well as basically displaying porn in a country where porn is illegal).
Copyright laws are a favorite instrument of preventing stuff that you do not want to happen.
In one country, making reaction videos or analysing news with clips from proprietary news channel is very common.
Then came a guy, who used news clips to create Before/After clips of politicians of a certain party. In these clips, the same person would be saying completely opposite things- on camera, and publicly- some years apart. These videos went viral. The party was in power. They forced the news channels to claim copyright to YouTube, and as they were legitimate, YT did take down those videos.
So, yes, when they say that he was arrested for copyright claims- I don't trust that.
I believe the issue was not that he was de-censoring per se, it was that he was reselling copyrighted works. That is, he could have been arrested for the same crime even if he was reselling them with no changes.
>> a lot of work that can be done in Porn with AI.
I think that "can be" is probably and "is being."
Porn generally, has a historical tendency to be a pioneering adopter of media technology. A substantial chunk of early commercial photography was pornographic. Early films. Early ecommerce. Streaming video. Porn is currently the most developed/active niche in VR filmmaking. I would even consider renaissance portraiture a part of the pattern.
In any case, most of "deepfake" that exists currently besides demonstration is pornographic.
The reason for this is we descend from an unbroken genetic line of creatures for which absolutely nothing else mattered what they did or did not do except that they could procreate healthy offspring. The drive for life to ensure it’s continual survival and evolution takes on all forms and it’s power permeates every other part of life. primatea in all of our wit and charm have become too smart to procreate in some cases by figuring out how to short circuit the drive to procreate through artificial stimulation. In some cases, intelligence can become an evolutionary disadvantage.
Many things are possible with the AI technology that we have today, right at this very moment that can be used to do things are the most wild things. Some of it would be illegal, some of it would be unethical. Good things are possible, too.
There was a repo on GitHub that contained the JDK environment variables (IIRC) to identify and box Uighurs from CC camera footage. The news made the headlines.
The getting out part was not really intended, I guess. So, imagine- what other wild things are out there in non-public repos.
"AI" is a very bad name, and often seen as synonymous to AGI. And people are either afraid or excited about it. Because much of the public facing content is focused on beyond-human AI. I guess this is because it is easy to get fundings, and there are private propaganda Machines running?
But there are so much that can be done today. Right now. Good things, too. If there are people willing to do it, and people willing to fund it, things are getting done.
AI weaponry is among this. I believe many things are being done that are far away from the public information.
Let me give you an example.
If there is a drone, I guess, it is not hard for mechanical engineers to rig a machine gun to it. Or with $$$ of defence funding, maybe a drone designed to host a machine gun. Then all you need is basically a cheap webcam and a Raspberry Pi to detect any motion, store the coordinates and aim and trigger the gun. When you have an enemy line, you deploy it behind that, and get done with it.
I am sure multiple countries have this today. And this example is among the lowest-hanging fruits of AI weaponry.
Lenna is a great image, they shouldn't retire it. it's only her head and shoulders after all, and she looks great. They should get a good looking male photo too, to balance things up - use them both for testing.
Someone who works in this sort of industry told a friend of mine that they are hired by a company that is contracted to the adult company but the adult company and the contractor company are owned/controlled by the same individuals. This way no one has to list some porn company as their past employer. If this was not done very few people would ever work for an adult company since it would immediately turn man future employers off.
How popular are the censorship laws in Japan? Is it like cannabis where the majority is in favor of legalization but politicians are beholden to a vocal minority? The whole thing seems so dated in the age of the internet. Anyone in Japan can easily access uncensored porn from anywhere else in the world on their phone now. What's the point?
Am not super versed in the question, but would wager it’s a matter of who’s willing to go fight the status quo to change the law. Contrary to cannabis, there’s no strong science behind decensoring, nor obvious medical use. The field is already under heavy attacks in a lot of fronts, there would be better battles to fight than this one.
I would argue that using science to prove cannabis/uncensored nips has benefits as an argument in favor of legalization is wrong. One should not start from the position of a thing being illegal and demanding others to argue for its legalization. The correct approach is to start from the position of a thing being legal, and arguing for it being illegal using science. So, has anyone proven using science that censorship has benefits? Reduces porn addiction? Reduces abuse?
Much of our free speech (and porn laws) are thanks to Larry Flynt. His case rather than being argued through "science" or statistics was argued via innate rights. Whether it's "good" or "bad" is none of society's business, and his case was about establishing the bar where society is allowed to care from a legal perspective.
Also worth mentioning that he lost his ability to walk over that case.
Free speech is one those things everyone pretends to support until someone uses that free speech to do something they disagree with. The mental gymnastics and hypocrisy tends to go off the charts quickly.
I dont think that is limited to free speech, that pretty much applies to all freedoms.
The number of people that can separate how they would choose to act, or live their life, and how the law should be applied to people is very slim.
Most people want the law to support their choices in life, thus if they don't believe blue cars should exists there should be a law that prohibits blue cars.
Over my couple decades of advocacy for more liberty, I have found that in general people do not want liberty, they want validation of their life choices
> On March 6, 1978, during a legal battle related to obscenity in Gwinnett County, Georgia, Flynt and his lawyer were shot on the sidewalk in Lawrenceville by Joseph Paul Franklin. The shooting left Flynt partially paralyzed with permanent spinal cord damage, and in need of a wheelchair.
>Franklin, a militant white supremacist and serial killer, also shot Vernon Jordan; he targeted other black and Jewish people in a killing spree from 1977–1980. Violently opposed to 'miscegenation,' he confessed to the shootings many years later, claiming he was outraged by an interracial photo shoot in Hustler.[12] About Flynt and a Hustler pictorial, he stated, "I saw that interracial couple ... having sex ... It just made me sick ... I threw the magazine down and thought, I'm gonna kill that guy."[13] Flynt himself suspected the attack was part of a larger conspiracy involving ultra-right elements surrounding U.S. Representative Larry McDonald also behind the Karen Silkwood case with ties to the Intelligence Community and that Franklin may have been subject to MKULTRA-style Mind Control.[14]
It's worth noting that after a lot of psychological evaluation that he was deemed a paranoid shizophrenic from years of abuse and starvation at the hands of his mother as a kid. That's detailed on Franklin's Wikipedia page as well.
iirc Japan's more conservative laws, including the ones related to porn, originated after WW2 in an attempt to appease the US's Christian sensibilities.
Ah, I remember the terrible coworker who shared this in work-chat within a week or so of being hired. Somehow he stuck around for a couple of years despite continued terribleness (of both the "HR-related" and the "actually-doing-his-job-badly" flavours), then went to Facebook. Good riddance.
The funny part is everyone I've ever known to be into sex, porn, kink, etc has been not the one doing the sexual harassment in an organization but rather the ones calling out bad behavior.
That tracks here. From later conversations with him, he was not actually a hentai enthusiast nor particularly kinky, but was just sharing it "for teh lulz" - whereas I later ran into another coworker that had expressed concern about his behaviour at a kink club.
(There's so shame attached to being unkinky - nothing wrong with being vanilla! Just presenting this as further evidence supporting your position that enthusiasm for kink is generally positively correlated with responsibility and awareness of how your behaviour affects others)
Not the latest on censorship. Couple of months ago someone was arrested for decensoring porn and putting it on their website.[1] With Deepfake and all the latest GANs, anyone can probably do it with an acceptable quality. It's just that the sale and distribution of such material will remain illegal in Japan for the forseeable future.
Long story short, these algorithms aren't recovering information that was lost. They reconstruct the images by guessing what should've been there. So, you're not violating any information theoretic concept.
But this means the guesses can be incorrect, although the likelihood of that happening can be greatly reduced with good training data.
It tries to predict patterns from blurry shots. It might introduce artifacts that were never there: some drawings I upscaled turned distant woods into houses. You can see why this might be bad when viewing something for historical accuracy.
Sorry, I think I was unclear. What I meant is that I am familiar with these techniques, I just never heard them applied in the context of history movies.
They used to censor nipples too, and then at some point they just didn't. I guess the Japanese government relaxed their guidelines a bit - after all, they've now recognized that manga and anime are effectively their Hollywood, and are very busy promoting them around the globe. I expect at some point they will quietly drop prosecutions of uncensored drawings altogether.
you don't need to even go as deep as hentai, you see it in anime (Ghost in the Shell is one prominent example)... it's fairly common to see nipples and a complete lack of genitalia
'Vagina' is not anatomically correct in the context of the description within the github text. 'Vulva' would be more appropriate. Vagina is the internal passage onwards from the vulva and terminating at the cervix. The vagina wouldn’t be visible under normal circumstances, the vulva would.
This project was deleted by the original author 9 months ago after they were doxxed/compromised potentially in relation to this project. This repo is a copy. The paypal donate link in the readme still goes to the original authors paypal lol.
I think the tone of the interview is going to depend heavily on the first impression. A well rounded person with good personal hygiene would make this seem like a fun and weird project. If the person is a total misfit neckbeard, it's going to be less fun and quirky, and more worrying.
I never understood why Japanese porn is so popular with all the sexy bits pixelated. I haven't seen much of it but it reminded me of the covers of 80s porn magazines with big stars over everything.
Not sure why they do it either but I read here it's the law there. Weird.
AFAIK it is part of some legal requirement, and the political inertia is against change in this case. Imagine yourself as a hypothetical japanese politician/lawmaker. You most likely don't want to be know as "that guy who fought for uncensoring private parts in adult media".
Here are all of the double-meanings / associations I can find in the DeepCreamPy name:
DeepCream sounds like deep dream, the AI technique
To cream is slang for to ejaculatw
Thus, "deep cream" would be to ejaculate "deeply". In general, "deep" is a richly evocative word in the context of sex.
"CreamPy" sounds like "cream pie," a type of pies, the pastry. Pies themselves also have a sexual connotation, due to the widely popular and influential sex comedy "American Pie" (it gave us the word MILF, for example).
I can't believe I'm participating in this conversation, but misapprehensions beg for clarification.
pie had the sexual connotation decades before American Pie, see notably "hair pie" at least from the 1960s; also earlier cherry pie with its jailbait associations; I would imagine also dating back to the early part of the last century in Black vernacular, see for comparison jelly roll.
cream pie only recently took on its modern meaning; prior to the last decade or so it referred to the same thing it does now, but only in the context of eating it. search usenet archives (see asstr.org) if you feel an uncontrollable need to learn more about this.
creaming, your jeans for example, equally applies to women.
So much of our technologies have been built or adapted to enhance and/or fulfil our desires, including sexual desires, it is puzzling to me why you think women are somehow excluded from this. Your post smacks of a modern puritanism.
> So much of our technologies have been built or adapted to enhance and/or fulfil our desires, including sexual desires, it is puzzling to me why you think women are somehow excluded from this. Your post smacks of a modern puritanism.
It's a question of venue. There's nothing wrong with the tech itself. Don't bring this up on HN. We have enough trouble fighting the stereotype of the misogynistic porn watching computer nerd as it is. Women are overwhelmingly offended by pornography (particularly hentai, which is very commonly focused on incest and pedophilia), and especially in a setting that is supposedly professional. Of course there are always exceptions to any rule. It just really bothers me to see the casual locker room conversation here that is so toxic to having an inclusive community.
What? Why? This is interesting. As a woman the only thing that offends me in "tech" is people who don't treat me as a person, but rather as a "woman in tech." I am person. I am just as good as you. I don't need some strong man to protect me from the big, scary world of the impolite hentai-masturbating nerds. Throwaway since I want to tell you to go fuck yourself. Yes, even women know those words, thank you very much.
It's not just a question of male/female, but of inclusiveness. As a minority, I see the same thing. The problem with tech is the white/asian male dominated frat house culture that pervades it from the point of college all the way to large companies. And anything that perpetuates that is unwelcome in a professional environment in my opinion.
How was it possible that you typed all this out, read it over, and still didn’t see the irony in what you were saying?
We are absolutely incredibly offended by porn. So thank you for speaking out to protect us women! I see that another woman has already told you to fuck off, so I’ll spare you that.
Nope. But what is the breakdown, 70/30 at best? There's nothing wrong with watching porn. It's just that having a casual "frat house" culture like this where people feel fine sharing these things in a supposedly professional environment inevitably leads to women being ostracized or alienated. The majority who disagree get labelled as boring or buzzkills and are excluded from the group, while the minority who go along are held up as examples to make them feel bad (we're not misogynistic! look!) like you pointed out.
You know what actually drove my fiance out of tech? Sitting in front of a computer all day till her health, looks, and worth as a women became threatened because instead of being fit, taking care of her body, and practicing self care she would instead have to do what most men do and just sit all day.
She has made commits to the Linux kernel that have been merged and she loves hentai and porn but is no longer in tech because she literally makes more money being a cam girl and it's way more fun.
Tldr: stop trying to white knight. It's neither warranted nor welcome.
>She has made commits to the Linux kernel that have been merged and she loves hentai and porn but is no longer in tech because she literally makes more money being a cam girl and it's way more fun.
I'd argue this proves my point though. Your fiance is someone who conformed to the existing male dominated culture and succeeded despite the structural roadblocks in place. But the other 50% of women who may have otherwise made a career in this industry were driven out.
My point being that there's no reason engineering teams shouldn't be 50/50 male/female, but the reality is more like 90/10. Why does the other 40% never show up despite our best efforts? It's cultural.
And why didn't they apply? Software is one of the best careers in the world. Maybe they are getting lost along the way earlier in the pipeline because tech is pseudonomyous with the the kind of people who like to talk about things like DeepCreamPy. Maybe they walk into that freshman CS class and see 30 other dudes that fit this profile and give them creepy unwanted attention and they drop it and switch to biology. There's a serious "dudes club" problem with this industry and this just feels like an expression of that.
> Software is one of the best careers in the world.
In theory it is. In practice...well, let's ask game developers for example. Or other groups who end up with a real-world job they end up hating.
> Maybe they are getting lost along the way earlier in the pipeline
Quite likely.
> because tech is pseudonomyous with the the kind of people who like to talk about things like DeepCreamPy. Maybe they walk into that freshman CS class and see 30 other dudes that fit this profile and give them creepy unwanted attention and they drop it and switch to biology.
Yeah, that's not happening. First, because for example in my country there's no such thing as "switching to biology", so you can't lose them this way. And yet, there's something like 7% of women in my country's informatics-related university programmes. Furthermore, those 7% are 7% of applicants, so there's no "maybe they [walked] into that freshman CS class" because those 7% haven't even seen that freshman class yet. So while you're quite likely correct in that "they are getting lost along the way earlier in the pipeline", it's definitely WAY earlier than you postulate in at least some quite large populations in the world.
> Maybe they are getting lost along the way earlier in the pipeline
I have admin access to our pipeline. They don't apply. The ratio is 50:1 or so.
> Maybe they walk into that freshman CS class and see 30 other dudes that fit this profile and give them creepy unwanted attention and they drop it and switch to biology.
And? What's your point here?
> There's a serious "dudes club" problem with this industry and this just feels like an expression of that.
Python library made to remove censorship from cartoons is an expression of some abstract made-up problem, do you even hear yourself?
It's wild seeing nerds on HN bend over backwards to justify themselves when the truth is that fewer women want to do the job. Not because they aren't capable but because they just don't want to.
http://driftwheeler.com
Surprisingly, almost 5 years after being published, this app still serves thousands of user sessions per day. That rate continues to slowly grow.
Except for its user interface, the whole app (client and server) was written in Go (https://pkg.go.dev/golang.org/x/mobile/cmd/gomobile).
It uses densenet feature vectors (https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06993) to allow "touch-to-search" (ha!) with a fractional norm distance metric (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.23...).
Citation: Discriminative Unsupervised Feature Learning with Exemplar Convolutional Neural Networks (https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.6909).